M855 Ban In Perspective

According to Mark Glaze, the ATF’s proposed ban on M855 ball ammunition is designed to protect police from armor-piercing rounds. The former Everytown for Gun Safety mouthpiece reckons the fact that many common rifle bullets can do the same thing – and how – is neither here nor there. Nor is the doyen of civilian disarmament concerned that gun owners will be deprived of cartridges that they use the ammo for target shooting and hunting (a.k.a., “sporting purposes”). Gun owners should “use other target shooting ammunition that can’t pierce through the Kevlar vests that police officers wear on the streets.” Which is a problem . . .

That ammunition doesn’t exist.

Mark Glaze wants American gun owners to use ammunition that doesn’t pierce the “bulletproof” vests of police officers, but the fact of the matter is that any commercially available 5.56 ammunition will do that same job. The vests worn by cops simply aren’t designed to stop rifle rounds. We know this for a fact because our own Nick Leghorn tested standard ball 5.56 ammunition against a Level IIA vest, and it sliced through like a hot knife through butter.

Nor is there any ammunition in the intermediate or large rifle caliber range that will fail to penetrate a Level IIA vest. .308 Winchester? .30-06 Springfield? 7.62×39? All of these calibers will pass straight through a “bulletproof” vest, no matter what kind of projectile is used — “armor piercing” or not.

The whole M855 thing is due to the increasing popularity of AR pistols, guns that fire 5.56 bullets that can go through a Level IIA Kevlar vest. In ATF parlance, AR pistols are “commercially available handguns designed to use conventional rifle ammunition.” Again, the idea behind instituting the ban: AR pistols are”relatively small, concealable firearms” which criminals can load with green tip ammo to kill Kevlar-wearing cops.

That’s “can.” Not “are.” As Regis Giles points out in the video at the top, it hasn’t happened yet. Is it likely to happen? Well, bad guys have used AR-15 rifles against police, most famously in the North Hollywood shootout. Not to mention incidents where “sniper rifles” and “hunting guns” have been brought to bear on the boys in blue. Given the history of bad guy/cop shootouts, it’s unlikely that bad guys will shoot at cops with AR pistols … but not impossible.

But it’s also true that some rifles have folding stocks, which make them almost as concealable as an AR-15 pistol. And there’s nothing to stop bad guys from sawing off the barrel of a rifle to make it more concealable. Except of course, the law against doing so. As well as laws against shooting cops (and other innocent people).

The debate over the an M855 ammo ban comes against the backdrop of a previous handgun/ammunition contretemps. wikipedia.org enumerates:

In early 2005, the [FN FiveseveN] pistol was subject to controversy in the United States after the Brady Campaign stated that commercially available 5.7×28mm SS192 ammunition penetrated a Level IIA Kevlar vest in testing.The National Rifle Association (NRA) shortly countered the Brady Campaign’s claim by stating that the gun control group may not have adhered to standard testing procedures, and that FN only offers armor-piercing varieties of the 5.7×28mm cartridge to military and law enforcement customers. Varieties offered to civilians are classified by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as not armor-piercing, and it was stated that the SS192 and SS196 cartridge variations were unable to penetrate various types of Kevlar vests in tests conducted by FNH USA.

Despite several attempts to do so, Congress (and the ATF) did not ban the FN FiveseveN pistol. Nor should we expect Congress or the Agency to attempt to ban AR pistols. Green tip ammo makers are unlikely to stop production. So the ATF’s decided to ban the AR pistol ammo.

Which makes no sense at all. ANY 5.56 bullet can penetrate a Level IIA vest. At the same time, you can buy a .308 pistol or a .30-06 pistol, whose rounds can also penetrate a Level IIIA Kevlar vest. The proposed ATF ban focuses on so-called “green tip” ammunition because the ATF claims that the bullet’s composition falls within the scope of existing (poorly defined and even more poorly researched) handgun-specific law.

So why bother banning green tip ammo? You could say it’s because the ATF is in the banning business, but I couldn’t possibly comment. Except to say this: Americans have a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment makes no mention of “sporting purposes” restrictions for guns or ammo. It has no exemptions for officer safety.

The law may allow for a ban on green tip ammo but it is both superfluous and unconstitutional. It would be a shame if the Attorney General pulls the trigger on the ban (after March 15th) despite these facts and the tremendous backlash from American gun owners. Given the nature of the beast the odds are the ATF will ban green tip ammo, forcing its defenders to take their case to the courts. A waste of time for sure, but just another battle to defend and extend American gun rights.

comments

He also mistakenly says: “The proposed ATF ban focuses on so-called “green tip” ammunition simply because the bullet’s composition falls within the scope of existing (poorly defined and even more poorly researched) handgun-specific law.”

However, no aspect of the ammo *actually* falls within the scope of the existing law (no matter how poorly written it is).

So, what is this jacka$$es proposal to stop people from setting cops on fire? Just as many cops are killed by being set on fire as are killed by M855 ammo fired from pistols, which is ATF’s only justification for banning M855. Well?!?!?

I’m sure this girl has good intentions, but this chick has got to be the most uninformed speaker they could have found. Or maybe fox was trying to do this guy a favor. SOOOOOOOOOO many good points she could have made, and not one was mentioned. In fact, the only “point” she made, about it being a teeny-tiny boolit, was wrong. Good night she was not prepared. And a bad speaker to boot. smh

And Fox has several retired Army/Marine types on the payroll, who could either have taken her place or counseled her by phone for 5 minutes to improve her portion of this debacle 1000%. This was an epic fail by Fox, unless that was intended.

Fox is no more pro-America, pro-Constitution than any of the other jackals in journalism. Its all about ratings and advertising revenue. As I said about NRA last week, “Its all about that cash, ’bout dat cash, ’bout dat cash, oh yea”.

Yeah, I’m done with the NRA. They are getting put to the test on all of these unlicensed OC and Constitutional Carry bills passing all over the nation, and they’ve failed to support EVERY SINGLE ONE. That alone tells me all I need to know about them moving forward. They’re in the “sensible” crowd. No more money from me.

I shook my head at Ms. Giles’ performance. She has all the facts and logic on her side, but she didn’t sound confident. Mr. Glaze has absolutely no facts or logic, but he sounded smooth and comfortable. To the low information voter, he is what “reasonable” gun control looks like. I get having a young woman as the pro-gun rights person. I get having someone outside of the NRA as the pro-gun rights person. But our side has to find better spokespersons.

I like FOX News. But I have been complaining about their coverage all weekend. This argument seems like one of the easier ones to make. The only drawback being the general public’s ignorance of the topic. It still could have been settled sooner. Which brings me to my fear. FOX doesn’t want to settle it. This is automatic air time filler now through the proposed date of the ban. They don’t care if the ATF follows through with the ban. They want ratings and this is a birthday cake from the ATF and they don’t want to eat it all in one day.

The media is not about providing news, it’s about selling ads. If some topic is “settled” they have to expend the effort to find a new one to fill otherwise dead air.

It’s like political polling, the media will always emphasize that a race is “close” or “closing” because it causes ads to be bought. “Hey, looks like you’re gaining, maybe a few more ads will push you over the top” or “That other candidate is catching up, you better buy more ads to get your message out”.

You’ll also see “hit” job pieces on some company to help sell ads to other folks – if you’re advertising, we won’t touch you so you better get on board and you better not get off,

This causes a few easily seen behaviors:

1) Topics are never settled – need to fill that air time

2) No criticism of advertisers is permitted – the pharma industry is one of the largest advertisers in the world so don’t ever expect a critical piece because we don’t want to piss anyone off and lose the revenue.

Yep, my thoughts exactly. That was so painful to watch her try and defend “our” side. Simply using the point that the host made, which is “most all other rifle rounds will pierce soft body armor, why not those too?” is what needs to be hit home.

For the moment. Their endgame is “precedent”, once they have that they will move on to banning all ammunition which can penetrate body armor. As the English used to say, “Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey”. Boiling frog analogy is over used! 😉

Is it just me, or is it becoming more and more apparent that the only viable solution here is Article V, amending the Constitution?
Feds in either major party don’t seem to want to do anything to fix this.
Maybe the state legislatures can be convinced to force the issue.

For example, you could reword 2A in modern English so that it very explicitly and unambiguously says that the right is unconditional (and that the whole “militia” thing is not a limiter). Furthermore, you could make it explicitly say that the right is individual, and that personal self-defense is also a reason in addition to the “security of a free State” – and that the enumeration of reasons is not to be taken as an implication that those are the only valid reasons.

Those things alone would make it that much more different to dismantle it. How many states out there that have RKBA provisions in their constitutions that are explicitly individual rights and for self-defense purposes, have bad gun laws on state level?

It depends. Although I am not against Article V, we have to go in with a game plan. An Article V convention is not an end all be all answer, particularly if you want to curtail specifically the power of our 3 letter agencies and unelected bureaucrats. And keep in mind, that the Progressive Statists would also love to get rid of the second amendment and alter the first amendment, although I find it hard pressed nowadays that 36 or 37 states would be willing to go along with that. And unlike others that fear the Article V solution, calling for a convention doesn’t guarantee anything will result from it either.

“…calling for a convention doesn’t guarantee anything will result from it either….”

However – NOT calling for an Article V convention DOES guarantee that NOTHING will change.

For the very best discussion of Article V and how it could/should work to resolve our current Constitutional crisis see “The Liberty Amendments” by Mark Levin. There’s a Constitutional scholar who actually knows what he’s talking about.

One of the important considerations (perhaps THE most important) is an amendment strictly limiting term limits for Congressmen. This is something that Congress itself will NEVER do, which is why an Article V convention is the only possible solution.

Only by this means can you either hold the politicians’ feet to the fire or ensure that whatever unconstitutional crap they try to get up to they must eventually be sent packing by being termed out. (See Dianne Feinstein – or not, I surely do not want to look at her.)

As stated above, there is no guarantee any of this will work as a “soft” revolution that will avoid watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots, but it should at least be honestly debated and considered before we advocate taking to the streets to do it the hard way.

A soft Article V revolution would be a grand message to the entire world that our system of government, sadly perverted over the years by the Progressives, can in fact be corrected and made to work without bloodshed in the streets.

Violent revolution in America can only guarantee that our influence on world order will be severely diminished and perhaps permanently destroyed as our enemies and those other nations that crave power and empire will not sit idly by while we bicker amongst ourselves and ignore those nations that survive today only under the protective wing of American power and influence.

Because it appears that the the only other approach is to tool up for real. Such would not be pretty and likely not yet to that point. Despite the fact that our betters/forefathers likely would tell us liberty are more endangered in 2015 than in 1775.

The ONLY time you could feel confident about creating an amendment to the constitution is when you have super-majority in both houses, the requisite number of states willing to ratify, and the presidency. We do not have those parameters.

Once we are shifting towards those parameters, there will be no call for an amendment to protect 2A rights, just boring old legislation. So this will not happen.

“…super-majority in both houses, the requisite number of states willing to ratify, and the presidency.”

Robert, the whole point of the Article V convention concept, as intended by the Founders when they included this in the Constitution, is a means for the states to amend the Constitution in defiance of and without the approval of either house of Congress, or the President, or the Supreme Court being required. The mechanism allows the states to convene, discuss and pass amendments to the Constitution assuming they have the requisite majority of states participating and eventually agreeing on those amendments.

What it is NOT is a Constitutional Convention, only a means to amend the existing Constitution when the sitting Congress has become corrupt or tyrannical and cannot be otherwise corrected through the mechanism of periodic purging through elections.

It would do us all well to read Article V of The Constitution of the United States of America and the discussions in the Federalist Papers regarding same.

I also strongly recommend Mark Levin’s speech at the CPAC recently. Brilliant.

I think that an Article V call – as it approached the 30 mark of States calling for a convention – would inspire Congress to act. The very last thing Congress wants to do is stand by and watch 34 States call for an Article V convention to do “X”; if they ever did it one time, why these rascal States might think they could do so again and again. Can’t have that, can we?
So, think of something simple.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms
that have a thing that goes up
shall not be infringed”.
If we couldn’t get 30-some States to defend ‘a thing that goes up’ then we can’t get anything. Get the idea?
Remember, we do NOT have to EVER reach the 34 mark. Congress-critters will grow increasingly anxious as we cross the 25 mark. At such a point, how sure can they be that we wouldn’t ever make 34 before they placate us?
What might that something simple be? I’d advocate something like:
“The right of the people to bear arms
shall not be denied for a lack of
need other than self-defense.”
Such a proposal would put the Won’t-Issue States in a corner. They would have to adopt a Shall-Issue statute if such an amendment were passed.
Why wouldn’t 34 States from among the 40 or so Shall-Issue (or CC) States hesitate to call for a convention on such narrow terms?
Congress might not respond by proposing an amendment with such language; however, they might adopt a National Reciprocity act. They might follow a simple National Reciprocity act with a “reform” requiring States to recognize non-resident CWPs issued to their residents. (E.g., my MN marriage license was honored in every State of which I later became domiciled.)
It seems as if we have friendly legislators at the State level whereas our Congress-critters couldn’t care less about the 2A. Why refuse to wield the weapon we have? Because all the other weapons we have used on the Feds have been working so well for every issue that concerns us?

If you want a constitutional amendment that many people and states will readily agree upon right away, as a test case for the process, then it’s not anything RKBA related (you won’t get anywhere even close to 34 on that, and Congress knows that full well). An amendment on Congressional term limits would be very popular and bipartisan, a safe choice.

I started out rather opposed, but have been more convinced that this may be the only solution left before we find ourselves facing a 2nd Amendment solution.

I think the most important change would be eliminating the 17th Amendment. So much of the problems we face today could be traced to disenfranchising the States by making the Senate a mob rule. Term limits on the legislature might be worthwhile as well as, at least the discussion, on SCOTUS. Limitations on executive orders could very well end up as part of the convention. This is also about the only way we’d ever get a balanced budget amendment or language limiting federal entitlements. The 9th and 10th amendment could be firmed up a bit, since the language is apparently a bit vague (uh… that’s sarcasm folks!). From purely personal perspective, I wouldn’t mind seeing a parental rights amendment make it in. I could also see a fiscal responsibility rule for the individual States making it in — I really doubt Missouri, Texas, etc. would be willing to continue paying for California and New Yorks failed social experiments. I wouldn’t be surprised to see restrictions placed on Federal bureaucracy. Finally, you could be certain there would be an amendment that restricts the privileges of citizenship from being given to non-citizens.

The good news that considering the makeup of the states, the changes would be sharply towards the Right. Also good news is that such a convention is a States matter. The federal government doesn’t have power over it.

The bad news is it won’t happen until a lot more of the public are convinced that the Federal government is irreparably broken. The other bad news is what those minority of Leftist States will do when such a Convention goes so strongly against them.

It’s a stretch to call an ar pistol small, compact and cheap. that woman shouldn’t have been on that show she clearly isn’t well versed in the subject being discussed. that debate should of been a slam dunk for her with minimal research.

I watched this live and referenced this segment twice on other posts here on TTAG. I just played the video and I must say the girl was deplorable in making her argument. Tucker helped her out by pointing out that all rifle ammo pierces Kevlar but she showed her ignorance at a time when we need to put our best face forward.

I can’t tell what hurts more right now, my Palm or my face. The host obviously led her to the correct argument and she didn’t bother trying to catch the softball pitch he threw to her. All she had to say is all .223 and 5.56 ammo will pierce soft body armor. This is nothing more than a power grab setting precident to allow the ATF broader ability to ban ammo.

Video was painful. I’m sure her intentions were good, but she is uninformed. M855 fired out of a pistol or rifle absolutely can penetrate a soft armor vest…but so can any other .223/5.56mm round. The correct argument is criminals generally aren’t carrying AR15 pistols,and while the law says they are pistols they are much larger and not discrete compared to traditional pistols.

Could Mr. Glaze adopt a more condescending tone and posture to Ms. Giles? First the interruption and then he might of well have said, ‘Well listen here little missy, we ain’t trying to ban your cute little target ammo. Now you go make me a sandwich and leave this to the men to sort out now schweeetcheeks.” Also, did he allude to the hunting rifle he used to keep in his pickup truck in full view that was used to hunt after school? I am calling BS on this fudd.

Pretty obvious the intent, they are coming after your guns, specifically AR pistols. First the Sig brace, then this. It is going to be an interesting 2 years for sure.

“…forcing its defenders to take their case to the courts. A waste of time for sure, but just another battle to defend and extend American gun rights.”

A “waste of time”?

Actually, I believe the actions of the antis and their political cohorts to enact ever more restrictive, intrusive anti-gun laws is a strategy specifically designed not only to incrementally impede the protected use and ownership of privately owned firearms, but also to deplete and exhaust pro-gun organizations coffers and stymie their ability to challenge the relentless proliferation of these unconstitutional laws.

I’ve been reading Medieval English history lately. Several incidents in which the peasants rise up against the ruling class and score some kills with farm tools etc. before the ruling class can organize. Then the ruling class shows up in armor (bought with taxes extracted from the peasants) and then it’s all over. That is to say the uprising is all over; the killing has just begun. That’s what this is about.

Out of curiosity, to what extent does barrel length play a factor in the ammo piercing ability of M855? i.e. When fired from a 5″ barrel will M855 still punch through Level IIA vest, whereas ball ammo would lack the ability?

Good question, but the answer is largely irrelevant. Bullet vest penetration is first and foremost a question of velocity, and also of bullet diameter. A .223 is a combination of tiny diameter and high velocity, hence why it penetrates.

First thing to understand here is that NO soft body armor is rated to withstand ANY rifle bullets. At all. Not Level II, IIA, or IIIA. Soft armor is not rated to protect against any rifle (excepting .22LR).

If we take the toughest soft armor on the market, IIIA, you can see what it’s rated to withstand:
9mm/.357 SIG/.357 Magnum @ up to 1470 fps
.44 Magnum @ 1430 fps

So, with the AR pistol, according to BBTI, even a 4″ barrel would still be delivering a 55-grain bullet at 1564 fps, which is above the velocity that the IIIA armor is rated to withstand. That doesn’t mean that it’s guaranteed that a 4″ AR pistol would punch through a vest, but it’s a possibility. A 6″-barrel AR pistol would deliver 55 grains at over 2,000 fps, and that’s pretty much all you need to get through a vest.

In my test of the Engarde IIIA soft armor, I was able to punch right through it with .223 ammo, and also with a .454 Casull at ~ 1860 fps. (and that is no failing of the vest; it was never meant to handle such velocities; the IIIA standards do not promise or provide protection from projectiles at such high velocities).

Side note — Liberty ammo will go through a Level IIIA vest. Military Arms Channel posted a video showing 9mm Liberty punching right through a IIIA vest. This is ammo that does 1900 fps from a 3″ pocket pistol, and that’s probably enough to go right through IIIA. Now, the effectiveness of Liberty’s fragmenting ammo is debateable, as it always is with any lightweight fracturing/frangible bullet, but the fact remains that if you wanted to pierce body armor, you can buy Liberty ammo today that’ll pierce body armor from the smallest handguns on the market. And Liberty isn’t the only maker of lightweight/fast ammo, MagSafe lists their MGL and MAX at 1950fps+, and RBCD claims a round with 2010 fps. I have not tested them but would not be surprised if any and all of these can pierce Level IIA and IIIA body armor. From a conventional handgun, not even needing something as (comparatively) rare as an AR pistol.

Do you still have that Engarde IIIA soft armor vest for testing? I have a hunch that a certain type of lead bullet will penetrate the vest when fired from a .357 Magnum or .44 Magnum with a 6+ inch barrel.

I’ve personally tested it to DOJ standards vs IIIa vests and found Liberty 9mm did not penetrate out of a 4″ barrel, and due to its light weight it did not even cause much backface deformation at all. Their reverse hollowpoint AP ammo is another matter entirely, but that stuff isn’t publically available.

>> Bullet vest penetration is first and foremost a question of velocity

I think that’s a bit of an oversimplification. The relative hardness of the materials matters, too, which is precisely why AP ammo uses hardened steel or (better varieties) tungsten cores. It’s just that compared to kevlar, both are “hard enough”.

But velocity is not the end-all be-all, as evidenced by the fact that polyurethane level III hard plates stop the faster M193 easily, but M855 punches right through (while for AR500 steel it’s the reverse).

They have to pretend to be within the law. There is no law to ban 5.56 handguns. There is a roundabout way to use a law to ban ammo based on those handguns, though.

It’s like a night with a herpes-ridden midget. Yeah, 5.56 handguns are a novelty and have a few interesting quirks, but they’re not worth the repercussions that should have been thought about early on.

Since this an arbitrary decision they could have reclassified them as SBR subject to the NFA. That would increase the cost and hassle of owning one. Using this excuse to go after all ammunition that can penetrate body armor then all they are going to is get Fudds up in arms.

Another stupid, worthless, feel-good measure made to look like the gub-mint is “doing something”. There are millions of M855 surplus rounds in hand of private citizens right now. Green tips have been sold as surplus for decades. All they did was perpetuate a myth and create a black market for them. Bonus points go to the first one who can point out a reference in a new movie to the “super” powers attributed to this round. Wait for it, it’s coming. Hollywood will be sure to support their statist masters any day now with a comical reference to the rounds lethal abilities – which will definitely be in the hands of criminals.

I would say I am disappointed but I am not. My government has been disappointing me for years.

Correct me if I am wrong but I was always under the impression that the NATO green tip has been criticized at length for its decreased lethality. The round and the rifle that fires it underwent some dramatic changes after Vietnam. The original round was lighter and fired at a lower velocity and out of a barrel with a 1:14 twist. This barely stabilized the round and caused horrific wounds. The VC themselves admitted to being scared by American airpower and none other than our little black rifle. The Soviets even designed their own little bullet to match. After Vietnam, for a multitude for reasons I won’t go into here, they M16 and the 5.56 were redesigned. The M855 was high velocity and longer range but as we found out in Somalia, had very little in the way of knock down power. Google “lethality, 5.56” and you’ll get thousands of articles complaining about it.

But now we’re supposed to believe that it’s a problem? After all these years? Can anyone document an occurrence where M855 was used in a crime to greater effect than say, an offering from another ammo manufacturer?

Let me remind everyone once again about the true “core purpose” of the Second Amendment: to ensure that We the People have the means to stop tyranny. If that takes the form of a foreign military who wears their version of Level III ballistic vests, I want ammunition that penetrates it. If that tyranny takes the form of our own military or police attacking We the People, I want ammunition that penetrates their ballistic vests.

“The proposed ATF ban focuses on so-called “green tip” ammunition simply because the bullet’s composition falls within the scope of existing (poorly defined and even more poorly researched) handgun-specific law.”
INCORRECT!
Existing law provides that the projectile’s core must be made “entirely” of the listed materials(steel, DU, tungsten, etc.). The ss109/M855s projectile is made partially of steel and partially of lead. Partially is not “entirely”, which is the word used in the statute, thus the most cursory examination shows that the BATFE is lying here. Unless they want to admit to being so retarded that they don’t know what the word ENTIRELY means in their own statute….

***I had to remove the petition link because that’s all people were doing is signing the petition which doesn’t really help us in this fight***

SAMPLE LETTER:

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed change to current law that would make it illegal to manufacture, import or sell on the open market M855 / SS109 ammunition.

The claimed purpose of this change is to “protect the lives and safety of law enforcement officers from the threat posed by ammunition capable of penetrating a protective vest when fired from a handgun”.

As the Technical Branch well knows, all rifle ammunition of a common caliber such as .223 / 5.56 is capable of penetrating threat level IIA and IIIA body armor regardless of the firearm that is used to fire it. M855 / SS109 is no more of a threat to law enforcement than M193 or Horandy VMAX loads are.

It’s also worth noting that rifle caliber pistols are rarely used in violent crime, their usage is a statistical zero for all practical purposes, which further begs the question as to why this proposed rule change is being considered.

Banning the availability of affordable surplus ammunition under the false pretense that it’s in the name of officer safety is a clear violation of our 2nd Amendment rights.

That’s not how it works.
The ammo is already made. With the military phasing out M855 for M855A1, millions of surplus rounds are going to be released from contract and dumped on the open market, giving cheap and available and reliable ammo for all.

Unless it gets banned first, at which point it can be redirected to DHC, NOAA, FBI, and any other government agency that’s entitled a piece, and we get nothing.

So why bother banning green tip ammo? You could say it’s because the ATF is in the banning business, but I couldn’t possibly comment.

Two reasons:
1. This is the most common round for the most common rifle in America. It’s also the most hated by the Anti’s. Even if it’s only temporary while manufacturers shift production priorities, they’ll take the PR win.

2. It sets the precedent of banning common rifle ammunition. Even though the round doesn’t fit either definition of armor piercing – perhaps because of this, they will have a precedent on the books to ban any or all rifle ammo one cartridge type at a time.

If you want a silly example of a round that will go through a standard Beat Cop Vest look no further than the old 45-70
70 grains of ff Swiss black powder and a Paper patched truncated cone flat point 550 grain slug cast from Old wheel weights will also do the job and there are Revolvers thAt are chambered in 45-70

After listening to that airhead fail spectacularly at trying to compose an (easy) argument supporting our 2A rights on National TV, I now want M855 banned. In fact, I am on my way to the local PD to turn in mine and my wife’s guns.

That hurt my head so much it isn’t even funny. “Teeny weeny itty bitty bullet that can barely break through target paper”. Ugh.

That was painful to watch! Why did they get a pro gun person who doesn’t know the difference between .223 and 5.56? Aaaand no one on the pro gun side is arguing that the M855 round will not penetrate cops vests. The argument is all 5.56 rounds will penetrate and also that the M855 round is not a common threat to officers. Like never killed an officer in the last 10 years at least.

This is another backdoor attempt, and so far succeeding, to ban the the “evil black guns”. The point is, they are using this as a first step. They know that all .223/5.56 ammo can penetrate level II armor, the kind most LEO wear. If they can ban this ammo, they will use this as an example why it’s “legal” to ban other ammo in “evil black gun” calibers across the board.